Abstract

The evolution and importance of theory in leisure research have been recognized as essential to broaden understandings of leisure. The purpose of this reflective piece is to describe and critique the contributions that theory has made by examining the research documented in American leisure and recreation research journals during the 1990s and projecting those contributions toward the future. From our perspective as individuals associated with Leisure Sciences during the past two years, we provide a review of literature regarding the meanings of theory, note summaries of other studies in our field that have empirically examined theory, compare leisure research from the 1980s to the 1990s, and offer suggestions regarding trends in the future theoretical development of the parks, recreation, leisure, sport, and tourism fields. We also advocate "post approaches" such as postmodernism that may be essential in the next stage of theory evolution. Keywords concepts, models, methods, structuralism, postmodernism In a research class taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, we emphasize the value and importance of theory as the foundation for research done in our field. Our students usually have great ideas for problem-based research that they want to undertake, but sometimes they struggle with what theory or conceptual foundations to use when addressing their research questions. One frustrated student joked one day, "Isn't there a website I can go to like INeedATheory.com?" The frustrated question was not new to us but underlined the need to reflect again what theory is, why it is important, and how it can be used in leisure research. Ellis (1993) called parks, recreation, and therapeutic recreation research a developing social science. Three approaches to studying social behavior The use of theory in leisure studies in the U.S. and Canada has not evolved in the same way as in Europe. Merton (1949) described the theorist with pure ideas uncontaminated by mundane facts juxtaposed to the social researcher equipped with questionnaire and pencil in pursuit of statistics that sometimes appear meaningless. Sometimes the differences between British leisure studies and North American leisure sciences (Coalter, 1999) have been described as the difference between ideas and statistics. In the twenty-first century, the suggestion that differences in research approaches are due to data verses ideas or serendipitous verses non-serendipitous findings is too dialectic. The purpose of this reflections piece is to describe and critique the contributions that theory has made by examining the research documented in American leisure and recreation research journals during the 1990s and projecting those contributions toward the future. Although the major focus of research journals is, and should be, on building a body of knowledge related to recreation and leisure (Burdge, 1975), we believe that a focused selfexamination from time to time may improve research efforts. As we finilize this article, we have had the experience of being directly associated with Leisure Sciences for almost two years. Our experience working with the journal does not make us experts in any way, but we believe that this piece, along with the field analysis research undertaken by Jackson described in this issue (2004), may provide a baseline for understanding more about theory and leisure research. We argue that theory is critical for an evolving body of knowledge that may or may not apply directly to practice. Theory Defining theory results in some of the same difficulties found in defining leisure. Like leisure, "finding" theory may be more important than "defining" it. Volumes have been written about theory including what it is and what it means. A tidy definition might be nice but may also limit or negate the value of why theory is important. Several common ideas, however, have been associated with theory. For example, Kelly (1987) noted that ". . . theory is systematic explanation of some repeated phenomena that is based on evidence" (p. 1). Theory attempts to explain why facts are what they are. A tendency sometimes exists to use philosophy and theory interchangeably. Philosophy relates to a belief system about how the world should work. Theory in Recreation and Leisure Research 413 Theory exists in different scopes. Grand theories aim at explaining all-embracing and grandiose ideas. Most theories used in leisure sciences are middle range theories, meaning that they are limited and modest in their scope. Uncovering grand theories and universal truths of social behavior may be an impossible task, but middle range theory can provide building blocks for analyzing recreation and leisure behavior. Leisure researchers may be able to address only limited explanations of data, but middle range theories can discern patterns that help understand leisure and human behavior better. In addition, postmodernists debunk the possibilities of finding a universal truth or grand theory regarding any topic and recognize that all theory is contextual and dynamic. The notions of inductive and deductive theory are often unconsciously dichotomized. Induction and deduction are closely related although the research methods selected may determine whether more emphasis is placed on one approach or the other. Deduction is the traditional approach to the scientific method whereby an individual starts with some general theory and applies it to a specific situation. With induction, a researcher starts with observed data and develops a generalization to explain relationships. Wallace (1971) noted, "In science (as in everyday life), things must be believed to be seen, as well as seen to be believed; and questions must already be answered a little, if they are to be asked at all" (p. 128). Grounded theory is commonly associated with inductive theory. Grounded theory, according to Strauss and Corbin (1967), refers to deriving theory from data. Grounded theory is really a method used where data collection, analysis, and theory are closely connected. The theory emerging from the grounded approach is either described as substantive theory or formal theory. For example, in a study where little is known about a topic, the theory might be substantive in that the results relate directly to the specific data and offer a foundation for further development and testing. On the other hand, formal grounded theory occurs when the results grounded in the data may support other existing formal theories that have been previously identified. Concepts are related to theory but are generally considered less sophisticated than theory Models may be closely related to theories. A model might be likened to a scientific metaphor (Kaplan, 1964, p. 265) or a structure of symbols. Any scientific theory couched in symbolic, postulational, or formal styles could be a model. The relations among the symbols show corresponding relations among the elements of the topic studied. Theory, however, states a certain structure but does not exhibit the structure itself, as a model does. The value 414 K. A. Henderson et al. of models is in helping researchers handle complex information without oversimplifying theories. Good theories are dynamic. "To engage in theorizing is not just learning by an experience but learning from it" (Kaplan, 1964, p. 285). New theories may not refute old ones but remake them. This process of research itself should create the body of leisure knowledge that professionals in our field need to build theory and to use the theory to promote quality of life and best practices. Theory and Leisure Sciences The study of leisure in North America sometimes is criticized as atheoretical. Professionals in recreation and leisure often focus more on providing services than building a body of base knowledge. Theory and practice are sometimes dichotomized. Yet, many leisure researchers have suggested how theory is essential for professional growth and quality services (e.g., Devine and Wilhite (1999) noted that research on processes and techniques derived from theory contributes to understanding reality and validating practice. Similarly, Sylvester (1992) described how grounding practices and research in theory strengthens the possibility of improved leisure functioning, quality of life, access to leisure opportunities, and right to leisure. Practitioners and researchers need to know not only what and how but also why. Without theory, the topics studied may result in a lack of focus and direction, which makes recreation and leisure research seem shallow Theory cannot be avoided since the most dogged empiricist makes judgments about the validity of data and the nature of reality, even if tacitly and non-reflexively. Perhaps the problem with theory in leisure is that the theory or the logical connections between ideas often are not made clear. The apparent lack of theory in the area of leisure sciences, studies, and practice has been documented by researchers. This process of self-criticism continues today (D' Amours, 1997; Theory and the Leisure Practice Gap The importance and value of theory clearly is not a new discussion. Many professionals in recreation and leisure areas assume that theory is used and tested by researchers so that it can be translated and used by practitioners. Theory in Recreation and Leisure Research 415 Parr discovered a relationship between leisure theory and recreation practice but suggested that researchers and practitioners may have different meanings for the concepts that are applied or studied. She found that practitioners associated theory primarily with programming processes and that leisure theory was used most by mid-level managers and front-line staff. Parr (1996) also described, as suggested by Emerging Views of Leisure Theories Kelly (1997) emphasized the importance of persistence and change as facts of the human condition. He also argued that nothing is permanent in society, that knowledge is always limited, and that most leisure findings are contextual. Similarly, Rojek (1997) described how leisure is ever changing and cannot be approached with only the traditional concepts of liberty, individual choice, and self-determination. Further, According to Functionalism, structuralism, and postmodernism all offer ways to understand leisure theory. K. A. Henderson et al. century they may fail to offer anything new in leisure research beyond clarifying and modifying existing knowledge. Kelly described how the postructuralist approach sees reality as a constantly changing process and stressed the inability and weaknesses of previous theories in attempts to study everyday life. Leisure research in the twenty-first century can fit within a postmodern context if the relationships among time, places, and activities are no longer identified in absolute terms, and if leisure is viewed as playful, irrational, pleasure seeking, and unexplainable. Despite the talk of a postmodern condition that dissolves former structures, most people still spend time at work and workplaces, and leisure behavior is often determined by their lifestyle and income. Postmodern approaches can be criticized because they are overconcerned with representation that does not address structural relations. All actors are situated at the margins, which diminishes the possibility of reconstruction of leisure. Postmodernists may privilege ambiguity and sliding meanings that limit leisure to a descriptive role. Postmodernists often do not focus on qualitative improvements, which results in the potential for "perpetual introspection" (Rojek, 1997, p. 387) rather than social change. Nevertheless, poststructuralism and postmodernism are opening doors to broaden leisure theory in ways previously not considered. The influence of postmodernism can be understood better by examining the current state of leisure theory. Ways to Examine Theory The empirical analyses in this reflective paper were modeled in the same way as the work done by Henderson in1994. The purpose of Henderson's work was to examine how empirical activity interfaced with leisure and to describe the status of leisure theory at the end of the 1980s. In the current study, we identified the research paradigm, the presence of theory, and the primary theory/conceptual frameworks used in juried articles published in the past decade. Our goal was to update an explication of the status of theory in four U.S. leisure research journals and to see what trends might be emerging. For purposes of this reflection paper, theory was conceptualized as a systematic explanation used for describing data and interpreting behaviors. The function of theory was to describe, explain, and/or predict an aspect of leisure behavior or professional practice. Each research article (commentaries, programming, responses, and research/short notes were not included) during 1992-2002 (11 years) In reviewing each of the articles, the following data were recorded: method used, application of theory, the theory or conceptual framework name, the definition of the theory or concept, the purpose of the article, and the nationality and sex of the authors. Unlike Henderson's study (1994), we did not attempt to determine whether the research done was positivist or interpretive, as we concluded that the methods and application of theory were more important indicators of the research paradigm. The methods included such approaches as questionnaires, indepth and structured interviews, literature and integrative reviews, experiments, group data collection (e.g., focus groups, nominal group process, Delphi), Theory in Recreation and Leisure Research 417 secondary data analysis or meta-analysis, case studies, mixed methods, and applications of the theory categories. The theory application categories included theory or model testing, theoretical or conceptual framework application, descriptive or evaluative studies, and theory or model development (usually substantive theory). A brief description of each topic follows: • Theory and Model Testing/Confirmation. We examined whether or not a priori theory or a model was explicated and how the results addressed the theory and added to a body of knowledge. The theory might have been described in words or as a model that might be constituted by diagrams or formula. If a model or theory was articulated but not confirmed in the research, we categorized the application as a conceptual framework. • Theoretical or Conceptual Framework Application. The application of a theoretical or conceptual framework meant that a theory, construct, or concept was used as the main dimension or building block that framed a study. These frameworks described a background and the main dimensions, factors, or variables to be studied. All articles used concepts but were not considered a framework unless the concepts were woven into the foundation and rationale of the study. These frameworks are necessary for research that has not confirmed or uncovered theory that might relate to the phenomena being studied. Further, in some studies that focused on the application of research to practice, conceptual frameworks often provided a broader base than did theory testing. • Descriptive/Evaluation. Studies that did not formally identify theory, models, or conceptual frameworks to build a rationale for the study or for the application of results were classified as descriptive or evaluative. Studies that addressed primarily the application of methods or the development of instruments were also considered descriptive. All these studies used concepts but did not develop the relationship between the concepts and the data collection and analyses. In some cases, the studies were not atheoretical, but the connections were not explicated. Many of these studies provided information that might be used to improve practice, but not necessarily to add to a broader body of knowledge. Some of these studies applied to a specific situation that made little use of the extension of formal theories. Nevertheless, these studies are valuable in communicating a foundation for possible theory development or testing in the future. • Theory/Model Development. Inductive research typically focuses on the theory that emerges or is discovered and/or uncovered as a result of a study. This development may be in the form of emerging or substantive theory that is evident because of the data. Sometimes this theory is grounded, and other times it may come as a formal theory that had not been associated with the topic of the research. Before providing an overview of our view of theory in these U.S. leisure and recreation research journals, we would like to offer several limitations of the research that has been published during the 1990s. First, as you will note in the invited piece in this issue by Jackson (2004), only a few people are doing a good deal of the published work that occurs in our field. Therefore, the use of theory may be limited or enhanced by the topics that these individuals study. Second, the research that is published reflects the biases of the journal editors and the associate editors. These gatekeepers enable some types of research with particular theoretical or conceptual frameworks to get published, while other studies might be rejected. In addition, as Jackson concluded, many of the researchers were also on editorial boards, thus possibly perpetuating certain theoretical biases. Third, the research reflected is primarily done by North Americans, which reflects the empirical aspects of the work done and the theories that may or may not be reflected. Finally, we acknowledge a good deal of possible overlap among the four categories of theory/model testing, theory/model development, conceptual frameworks, and descriptive/evaluative research. The data as they are presented, 418 K. A. Henderson et al. however, give a sense of where and how theory is used in our field. Pausing for a moment of self-reflection and critique may provide the impetus for moving on in new directions.